из рубрики "слёзки катятся": почему я больше не соционик
"You find the multiplicity of relations too confused to be interpreted in socionics. Yet, other people find socionics an obviously convenient way of thinking about these relations - even if highly inexact."
печальная история случилась с очередным сами понимаете кем - вы посмотрите только, сердце радуется. и в целом я рекомендую не фиксироваться на предполагаемом тиме гражданина - но и забывать о нём не следует, да и как о нём забудешь:
Compared to where I was coming from 8-11 years ago, this is a spectacular shift. With this post I'm declaring that Socionics has more than lost its relevance for me; it's actually become incompatible with my current view of myself and people. I'm not saying now that I'm not IEE or that types don't exist. I will be explaining, though, why it is useful to think about and experience people and relationships outside of types.
звучит знакомо, не правда ли. "relationships outside of types" и всё такое, прям БУКВАЛЬНО как мы любим. поговаривают, это некий рик де лонг. пора уже и гражданину львову, например, брать себя в руки - какая нахер соционика, дружок. забудь эту боль и живи спокойно, какие твои проблемы. а теперь небольшой пример фактической адекватности суждений гражданина:
It's also perhaps predictable that a person who at this life stage is focusing more on his broader circle of relationships (that would be me) may take less interest in intertype relations than someone who is focused more on relationships with a much higher level of interaction. I recognize this bias.
а теперь немного душещипательных подробностей - ведь мы же хотим знать, как это так вышло, и какова поучительная мораль этой басни.
This summer and fall, I realized that I could have been wrong about one of those key relationships. I had always typed this friend as SLI despite her self-typings of alternately IEE and ILE. Then a friend got to know this person as well and disagreed strongly with my SLI typing (which already didn't matter as much to me anymore). As I looked at things through his eyes and saw a fairly convincing case for another type, I could feel it was time to leave socionics behind.
If she was indeed ILE, then it was ridiculous that I had had my major "dualization" experience with her - upon which I had based my understanding and descriptions of the process that have helped other people looking for the same thing in their lives. If she was indeed SLI, then it was ridiculous that I was the only person out of a fairly diverse group who could see it. Either way, the situation was entirely ridiculous and discredited socionics.
отлично, согласитесь. там ещё про всякий "neuroscience", тоже занятно - кому надо, читайте по сцылке. а вот пара любопытных комментариев. первый - оценочный, касательно гражданина и его подхода. это может быть интересно во первых гражданам ИЭЭ, и далеко не только им, желающим попробовать избежать подобных ошибок, если это вообще возможно в принципе. во-вторых - разумеется, гражданам, которым такие граждане интересны как вид (то есть собственно соционикам). ну и во-третьих - всем-всем-всем, в более общем смысле.
What I see in your articles (also those on e.g. neuroscience or Peak oil), is that you have an all-or-nothing tendency to such subjects. You either accept such theories wholeheartedly and uncritically, or reject them totally. Above all, I don't see any attempts to falsify your own beliefs, i.e., not until you are ready to completely reject certain beliefs. I think that is where you went "wrong" in your application of Socionics.
You should not ask yourself if Socionics is wrong, but if your particular interpretation of it is. It is my believe that when proper attempts at falsification are made, a workable and valid construct of Socionics insights can be arrived at.
ну и ещё камент, самую малость про "neuroscience", на которую наш герой, по всей видимости, собирается онанировать следующие десять лет.
As someone who works in neuroscience, I feel that neuroscience is indeed an exciting advancement in knowledge, but highly limited. Socionics, at best, is the same -- it is highly limited, but I feel there are many things that it has to tell us. Specifically, I feel that these things have more to do with quadra values as guiding motivations.
ну и самый примечательный камент, который какбэ символизирует.
be honest with us: who are you kidding? This blog post has IEE written all over it!
печальная история случилась с очередным сами понимаете кем - вы посмотрите только, сердце радуется. и в целом я рекомендую не фиксироваться на предполагаемом тиме гражданина - но и забывать о нём не следует, да и как о нём забудешь:
Compared to where I was coming from 8-11 years ago, this is a spectacular shift. With this post I'm declaring that Socionics has more than lost its relevance for me; it's actually become incompatible with my current view of myself and people. I'm not saying now that I'm not IEE or that types don't exist. I will be explaining, though, why it is useful to think about and experience people and relationships outside of types.
звучит знакомо, не правда ли. "relationships outside of types" и всё такое, прям БУКВАЛЬНО как мы любим. поговаривают, это некий рик де лонг. пора уже и гражданину львову, например, брать себя в руки - какая нахер соционика, дружок. забудь эту боль и живи спокойно, какие твои проблемы. а теперь небольшой пример фактической адекватности суждений гражданина:
It's also perhaps predictable that a person who at this life stage is focusing more on his broader circle of relationships (that would be me) may take less interest in intertype relations than someone who is focused more on relationships with a much higher level of interaction. I recognize this bias.
а теперь немного душещипательных подробностей - ведь мы же хотим знать, как это так вышло, и какова поучительная мораль этой басни.
This summer and fall, I realized that I could have been wrong about one of those key relationships. I had always typed this friend as SLI despite her self-typings of alternately IEE and ILE. Then a friend got to know this person as well and disagreed strongly with my SLI typing (which already didn't matter as much to me anymore). As I looked at things through his eyes and saw a fairly convincing case for another type, I could feel it was time to leave socionics behind.
If she was indeed ILE, then it was ridiculous that I had had my major "dualization" experience with her - upon which I had based my understanding and descriptions of the process that have helped other people looking for the same thing in their lives. If she was indeed SLI, then it was ridiculous that I was the only person out of a fairly diverse group who could see it. Either way, the situation was entirely ridiculous and discredited socionics.
отлично, согласитесь. там ещё про всякий "neuroscience", тоже занятно - кому надо, читайте по сцылке. а вот пара любопытных комментариев. первый - оценочный, касательно гражданина и его подхода. это может быть интересно во первых гражданам ИЭЭ, и далеко не только им, желающим попробовать избежать подобных ошибок, если это вообще возможно в принципе. во-вторых - разумеется, гражданам, которым такие граждане интересны как вид (то есть собственно соционикам). ну и во-третьих - всем-всем-всем, в более общем смысле.
What I see in your articles (also those on e.g. neuroscience or Peak oil), is that you have an all-or-nothing tendency to such subjects. You either accept such theories wholeheartedly and uncritically, or reject them totally. Above all, I don't see any attempts to falsify your own beliefs, i.e., not until you are ready to completely reject certain beliefs. I think that is where you went "wrong" in your application of Socionics.
You should not ask yourself if Socionics is wrong, but if your particular interpretation of it is. It is my believe that when proper attempts at falsification are made, a workable and valid construct of Socionics insights can be arrived at.
ну и ещё камент, самую малость про "neuroscience", на которую наш герой, по всей видимости, собирается онанировать следующие десять лет.
As someone who works in neuroscience, I feel that neuroscience is indeed an exciting advancement in knowledge, but highly limited. Socionics, at best, is the same -- it is highly limited, but I feel there are many things that it has to tell us. Specifically, I feel that these things have more to do with quadra values as guiding motivations.
ну и самый примечательный камент, который какбэ символизирует.
be honest with us: who are you kidding? This blog post has IEE written all over it!